A question for those that oppose impeachment (a clarification)

[mmonk]

Many say that if officials in the bush administration are impeached, it will be certain doom for the democrats in 08. What drives this thought with such certainty? Is there any historical evidence to back that up? I'm asking since many feel that so strongly. Please, no flame wars or is doesn't mean is debates. Just for my own info.

[splat]

1. Priorities. People want the country back on course, not trials

[mmonk]

2. Thanks for responding.

[barb162]

4. yes, that's right

[QuestionAll...]

21. no, actually that's wrong.

professional killers should get their due without any delay.

[QuestionAll...]

22. guess I'm not a people then, because I want heap big trials. now. nt

[barb162]

3. I will give this a try

If the Democrats try to do an impeachment, it will probably do further polarizing and the country or voters seem to be saying they want less polarization. SO the Democrats need to be centrist as they did by putting up several centrist candidates. If the Dems show they are just as nasty as the neocons, the voters won't want to vote for Democrats. If you grab the center you take it away from thr Republicans and they can't win. Therefore it's more important to gain and keep the center than to worry about impeachment. Frankly, it's also a fucking waste of time. There are far more important issues facing the country than worrying about him being impeached, etc.

The war, job loss, environmental, social security, etc

[QuestionAll...]

23. so this is about democrats and their standing and not justice? nt

[On the Road]

5. It Has to be Sold to the Voters

As low as Bush's approval ratings are, his public image is not of someone who has committed impeachable offenses. Absent such a perception, voters will probably punish the impeaching party more than the impeached official. I believe this is where that perception comes from.

If Bush is going to be impeached, it has to be part of a longer-term process which discovers and sells to the public new material of great concern. I have no doubt that the material exists. But the stage hasn't been set.

I realize this may reek of expediency adn public relations. But those are the political realities. Control of the country in 08 is too important. And if the next president is a Republican, the next Senate and possibly the House will be too.

[PSPS]

8. I don't buy it at all

"As low as Bush's approval ratings are, his public image is not of someone who has committed impeachable offenses. Absent such a perception, voters will probably punish the impeaching party more than the impeached official."

If any of that were true, how would you explain the aftermath of the Clinton presidency & impeachment? Clinton's numbers were in the 60's, there were hecklers in the senate chamber because it was a farce, yet it had no apparent effect on republicans running for office in 2000.

Also, when did it become a matter of "political expediency" whether or not someone is punished for breaking a law? The constitution demands that bush be held accountable for his criminality -- the likes of which we've never seen in this country before. Anyone who shies away from this duty is a coward and antithetical to everything being american is supposed to mean.

There are those who would have made these same silly arguments about Pinochet too.

No, we must prosecute these heinous individuals who have mercilessly tortured and slaughtered untold numbers of innocent people. If we don't, just what does our country stand for?

[On the Road]

18. OK, You Don't Buy It

You do realize that nothing on the table now will get the required votes to send impeachment to the Senate -- with so many Democrats on record against it, a majority vote is out of the question. The public will interpret the failure of the charges as exoneration. Is that what you have in mind?

Nothing in the constitution requires impeachment. The goal is to reverse the things Bush has done and go on to govern the country in 08. Immediate impeachment does not further those goals.

[everythingsxen]

6. The reason is..

If Congress spends all it's time working on the impeachment (minimum 1 year, at least) then nothing will get done. I don't know about historical fact backing that up, but I don't remember much getting done while Clinton was being impeached, nor Nixon.

So, if they impeach and by '08 nothing has gotten better because the Dems have squandered their time with impeachment, it would most likely be a GOP win because the Dems right now are holding a time bomb of economy and war. Voters have short attention spans and by the time '08 rolls around the GOP will say that the Dems have done nothing to fix the economy or terrorism. They will put on their "fiscal conservatives" game face and it will be all downhill from there.

[PSPS]

9. Not true

"If Congress spends all it's time working on the impeachment (minimum 1 year, at least) then nothing will get done.

During Nixon's impeachment, the congress was certainly able to perform all of its normal work. While the hearings may have eaten up the news cycles, bills continued to be passed, nominees were examined, other hearings were held. Congress can certainly walk and chew gum at the same time.

[longship]

7. Not against impeachment.

I'm only against impeachment inquiry prior to investigations, and prior to overwhelming call from the people.

We can get it done, but it has to be done right. We have to turn public opinion around on this. That can happen if revelations leave no doubts to the level of corruption and unconstitutional behavior of these thugs. The only way that happens is by revelations from the inevitable investigations, and by relentlessly beating the drum for impeachment. The latter, not by our Congress critters, but by us.

Congress should not act until the time is ripe. Then, they should be able to sweep in and get the job done. We've got to do the footwork for Congress on this one. That's the only way to get it done right. We take the monkey off their back and let them do their jobs. They'll be there when it's ready. Trust me on this. It's just how it happened in 1974.

[mmonk]

10. I'll be one of those beating the drums.

I do remember in 1974, it first started so innocuously. Then it began to grow. It's all really tough because all of this that has happened is textbook impeachment offenses (and quite dangerous to our system).

[PSPS]

11. You've got the right idea

By all means, you wouldn't start an impeachment in January. First, the damning documents and facts must be revealed to the public. Investigations must be done and subpoenas must be issued to get it all out in the open. Once that's done, there will be plenty of public outcry for yanking these thugs.

[azurnoir]

14. Short answer

Make him quit so the people can't fire him? If I remember correctly that's what happened. There must be solid evidence, this time a criminal conviction is truely in order. Not even during Nixon's reign was there the open, bald faced war profiteering by the very people running the government that this guys have pulled off.

[solara]

17. Woodward and Bernstein multiplied by thousands...

what an idea. No wonder Poppy hates the idea of bloggers. Keep the internet FREE!


To refresh the memory:

http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/impeachments/nixon.htm

[upi402]

12. I don't think it will be '08 doom at all

I just think there's a smarter play in the interim. Leave the lamest duck EVER! in office taking the heat, as a target of responsibility, as a reminder...

And hold criminal charges over his head to get him to sign our 'Rx for the Republican disease' bills and Acts.

Other more base political advantage to be harvested before we put him on trial.

[mmonk]

13. Lame duck but with more power than King George (at least temporarily).

[upi402]

15. Yep, but unitary now has a different connotation

:toast:
What a wonderful topic to discuss though, either way!

[prairie populist]

20. We have a winner

Investigate, let the facts be revealed, and then impeach.

In the meantime, the Dem leadership needs to hold the club of possible impeachment over his head and beat the snot out of him with it if he or his neocon thugs try to obstruct or malign the Dems as they take care of the overdue business of setting the country back on track.

[Jemmons]

16. Its just a bad gamble:

To me it is just an unwarranted gamble to make, one with bad odds at best. The desire to impeach is to some degree driven by hurt and anger, something which should make you think twice about your course of action, the chances of gains and loses involved. There are some chances of actually convicting either Bush or Cheney, but they are perhaps not that great. On the other hand it is almost certain making martyrs of them will polarize the voters and energize the GOP-camp: They will react a lot different to a trial than dem-voters reacted to the Clinton impeachment. In effect you will just make it very easy for a lot of people to be "certain" about their vote without ever thinking about the consequences.
Democracy needs carm deliberation and thinking about your future, fascism just need that you revert to your basic instincts and act with no thinking. Almost any national event that makes people get angry will serve the GOP agenda, which essentially is a crusade against common sense and reasoning.

[thedeanpeople]

19. <deleted>